Stephen Gerber, et al. v. Twitter, Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: December 1, 2025
• Docket: 4:23-cv-00186
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STEPHEN GERBER, et al., Case No. 23-cv-00186-KAW

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 v. LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 TWITTER, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 185 11 Defendants.

12 13 On October 30, 2025, Defendant Twitter, Inc. filed a motion for leave to file a motion for 14 reconsideration of the October 16, 2025 discovery order. (Def.’s Mot. for Leave, Dkt. No. 185.) 15 Therein, Defendant argues that the privilege log documents were created to “advise Twitter about 16 anticipated litigations worldwide, Twitter’s regulatory obligations, and to mitigate the risks of 17 anticipated regulatory proceedings.” (Id. at 8.) In finding that attorney-client privilege and work 18 product privilege did not apply, the Court found that the regulatory obligations appeared to be 19 related to business requirements. (See Oct. 16, 2025 Order at 3, Dkt. No. 178.) Thus, the Court 20 found that the privilege log documents would have been created for those business requirements 21 even if no litigation was anticipated. (Id.) 22 Based on the Court’s review of Defendant’s motion for leave, Defendant appears to argue 23 that advising about the regulatory obligations was legal advice, rather than being related to 24 business requirements. (See Def.’s Mot. for Leave at 17; but see In re Dominion Dental Servs. 25 USA, Inc., 429 F. Supp. 3d 190, 193 (E.D. Va. 2019) (“materials prepared in the ordinary course 26 of business or pursuant to regulatory requirements or for other non-litigation purposes are not 27 documents prepared in anticipation of litigation”).) The Court believes it could benefit from more 1 Defendant may file a brief, which shall be no more than 10 pages, focusing on whether 2 advising about the regulatory obligations constitutes legal advice (as opposed to business 3 || requirements). Defendant is reminded that with respect to attorney-client privilege, California 4 || state law applies, such that “if a report is prepared in the usual course of business for a purpose 5 || independent of possible legal consultation, no privilege is created even if the document is later 6 sent to counsel.” City of Hemet v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. App. 4th 1411, 1418 (1995). 7 Defendant should also not focus on the Monteiro declaration, which simply reiterates that the 8 || privilege log documents were meant to advise Defendant about anticipated litigations, Defendant’s 9 || regulatory obligations, and to mitigate the risks of anticipated regulatory proceedings. 10 Defendant shall file its motion for reconsideration by December 15, 2025. Plaintiffs may 11 file an opposition, which shall be no more than 10 pages, by January 8, 2026. Defendant may 12 || file areply, which shall be no more than 7 pages, by January 15, 2026. The Court sets the 5 13 motion for reconsideration for hearing on February 5, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. 14 Should Defendant file its motion for reconsideration by December 15, 2025, the Court will 3 15 deem the October 16, 2025 order stayed until the motion for reconsideration is resolved. a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 17 Dated: December 1, 2025

19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28